Decision Diagnostics Corp (DECN)

[EDMGUY]

IPwatcher,
You said:

Hope. Dead Wrong I am afraid.
The alleged infringement is purely historical. These patents are long since expired. The litigation has no bearing on JnJ or anyone else's freedom to sell the products in question in the market today or in the future. Therefore the litigation could be included or excluded from the sale by agreement of buyer or seller. The potential risk (for that is all it is - potential!) of any liability can be assigned an agreed actuarial value and to be either included in or deducted from the sale price, depending on whether liability for the historical infringement transfers to the buyer or continues to be underwritten by JnJ.
Its really an insurance question, effectively.
Beyond that, the litigation has little or no bearing upon the sale of the Lifescan franchise

Now read this statement from DECN:

J&J attacked the Company in 2011 in an obvious attempt to remove the company's feature-rich and significantly less expensive GenUltimate!™ product from the competitive landscape. The Company prevailed in the suit involving three separate patents filed by J&J and subsequently filed its own lawsuit in March 2016 in a different legal venue than the California 9th circuit.

In March 2016, DECN, through its technology subsidiaries, filed suit in the Nevada District Court against J&J for infringement of two patents owned by DECN subsidiaries. In March 2017 the trial judge in the Nevada court granted DECN the ability to amend their patent infringement claims, using the influential Doctrine of Equivalents ("DOE"). DOE is the adjustable crescent wrench tool used in certain types of patent infringement cases. The scheduled hearing on November 17, 2017 will determine the course of the litigation.

Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that the outcome of the current infringement case (as yet unresolved ) has "little or no bearing on the sale of the Lifescan franchise" when a significant portion of the revenues are derived from sales of the strips whose patents are in question?

I am in no way implying that DECN is on the verge of winning $400 million based on this case. The current share price of 0.05 says the market agrees. My point is that if there was historical infringement by JNJ of a patent that was valid at that time it would seem to imply that going forward they may not have the same leverage/tools available to them to maintain market dominance. If the current case were to be decided against JNJ (wouldn't be the fist time they lost) why wouldn't that impact the value of the franchise regardless of who owns it?
Thanks for your insight.
regards